Prospective Randomised Study: Robotic-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Cancer Resection

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

Low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery in robotic mid-low rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study from a single-center

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is the main surgical approach for treating rectal cancer, but there is still no clear consensus on the issue of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery during the procedure. Robotic surgery has been shown to have certain advantages over laparoscopic surgery in multiple studies, but further research is needed to better understand the outcomes of robotic surgery in the context of low ligation procedures. In this study, we included 1590 patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Among them, 942 patients underwent low ligation surgery (LL), divided into 138 in the robotic group and 804 in the laparoscopic group. The high ligation surgery (HL) group consisted of 648 patients. The results of LL vs HL showed that the LL group had faster bowel movement recovery (P = 0.003), lower anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.032), and lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.001). The results of Rob-LL vs Lap-LL showed that the Rob-LL group had longer operative time (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.001), more lymph nodes retrieved (P = 0.045), and lower Wexner score at 2 weeks postoperatively (P = 0.029). The concept of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery is a promising surgical approach that can accelerate the patient's functional recovery. When combined with robotic technology, it may offer more benefits than laparoscopic techniques.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study

AIM

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms has permeated the medical field with great success. The widespread use of AI technology in diagnosing and treating several types of cancer, especially colorectal cancer (CRC), is now attracting substantial attention. CRC, which represents the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy in both men and women, is considered a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Our review herein aims to provide in-depth knowledge and analysis of the AI applications in CRC screening, diagnosis, and treatment based on current literature. We also explore the role of recent advances in AI systems regarding medical diagnosis and therapy, with several promising results. CRC is a highly preventable disease, and AI-assisted techniques in routine screening represent a pivotal step in declining incidence rates of this malignancy. So far, computer-aided detection and characterization systems have been developed to increase the detection rate of adenomas. Furthermore, CRC treatment enters a new era with robotic surgery and novel computer-assisted drug delivery techniques. At the same time, healthcare is rapidly moving toward precision or personalized medicine. Machine learning models have the potential to contribute to individual-based cancer care and transform the future of medicine.

Clinical, pathological, and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic proctectomy for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Although several meta-analyses regarding robot-assisted proctectomy (RP) and laparoscopic proctectomy (LP) in patients with rectal cancer are constantly being published, meta-analyses considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still rare. It is therefore necessary to conduct an appropriate meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical decision-making. Databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCTR) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were used to collect RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of RP and LP. Article search was performed until August 2019. Data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by two reviewers independently, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using R software. Eight RCTs were included involving 999 patients, 495 of them underwent RP and 504 underwent LP. The results showed that the RP group had a longer operative time (P < 0.01), a lower conversion rate (P = 0.03), a longer distance to the distal margin (DDM) (P = 0.001), and a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction (P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality, complication rates, PRM, number of harvested lymph nodes, length of hospital stay and time to first bowel movement between the two groups. Current evidence suggests that RP is superior to LP in short-term clinical outcomes, which is similar to LP regarding pathological outcomes and has better DDM outcomes. However, the comparison between RP and LP regarding long-term oncology outcomes still require further multi-center and large RCT samples to confirm our evidences.